Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama: 'leading from behind' on Libya
Guardian.co.uk ^ | August 27, 2011 | Michael Boyle

Posted on 08/27/2011 10:33:22 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar

The White House is spinning the US role in Nato's support for Libyan rebels a foreign policy triumph. That hardly stacks up

In case you weren't paying attention, the downfall of Muammar Gaddafi has been claimed by the White House as a vindication of President Barack Obama's decision to "lead from behind". Almost as soon as the rebels reached Tripoli, the administration's deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, Ben Rhodes, began spinning the media that Obama's light footprint approach to regime change was infinitely superior to the Bush approach. Administration officials fell over themselves to point out that the entire operation had not cost a single American casualty. One official even crowed that "Reagan targeted Gaddafi; George W Bush targeted Bin Laden; Obama has done both."

American commentators were not far behind the administration in declaring this operation as a victory for President Obama. Some wondered whether the Libya operation would aid President Obama's chances at re-election. Others declared it a "nuanced victory" for a reluctant wartime president. Still others complained that President Obama was not getting enough credit from Republicans for his strategy of "limited engagement" in Libya. Even the normally sensible Fareed Zakaria heralded the Libya operation as ushering in a "new era in US foreign policy".

Such fulsome praise put the Republicans in a particularly difficult bind. Most of the current Republican leadership were cheerleaders for President Bush in his bloody experiment with regime change in Iraq, but are now tying themselves in knots trying not to credit Obama for his own regime change intervention in the Middle East. Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham even released a statement that congratulated the British and French but expressed "regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: leadingfrombehind; libya; oup; richardminiter

1 posted on 08/27/2011 10:33:24 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

1. Yeah, expect a fully western democratic republic style democracy based on english common law, soon.

2.Libya: NATO Takes Lead, Americans Do 65% of Work.

The “leading from behind” mantra ? Epic Big Lie Fail.

http://reason.com/assets/mc/tcavanaugh/libyanatobreakdown.jpg


2 posted on 08/27/2011 10:37:43 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

>>>>Such fulsome praise put the Republicans in a particularly difficult bind. Most of the current Republican leadership were cheerleaders for President Bush in his bloody experiment with regime change in Iraq, but are now tying themselves in knots trying not to credit Obama for his own regime change intervention in the Middle East.


3 posted on 08/27/2011 10:38:05 AM PDT by ken21 (ruling class dem + rino progressives -- destroying america for 150 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

PS:

Forgot the most obvious,

3. Illegal war of aggression by Obama. Direct violation of War Powers Act.

Will be be Impeached or Indicted soon? / sarc off


4 posted on 08/27/2011 10:39:36 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
Leading from behind - it's all he knows. It's the Peter Principle at work. Bo should be named Soros.


5 posted on 08/27/2011 11:02:42 AM PDT by maine-iac7 (ALWAYS WATCH THE OTHER HAND)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21
current Republican leadership were cheerleaders for President Bush in his bloody experiment with regime change in Iraq, but are now tying themselves in knots trying not to credit Obama for his own regime change intervention in the Middle East.

Excuse me all to HE*L, but there is that little difference of: Bush got both sanction from the UN and UNAMIMOUS CONSENT from Congress to go into Iraq.

Bummer got NEITHER.

ALL he got from the UN was permission for a 'no fly.' He did NOT get permission to go to full scale war. And he never ask Congress.

Where our congress is negligent is in not having stopped it.

6 posted on 08/27/2011 11:08:20 AM PDT by maine-iac7 (ALWAYS WATCH THE OTHER HAND)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

“Reagan targeted Gaddafi; George W Bush targeted Bin Laden; Obama has done both.”
LOL someone leaning the bottle a tad to much,it’s spin at 85,0000 rpm.


7 posted on 08/27/2011 11:11:05 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

He likes bringing up the rear.


8 posted on 08/27/2011 2:01:23 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson